美國專利申請文件撰寫講義-免費閱讀
【正文】 112, paragraph six 22 California :: Delaware :: Florida :: New Jersey :: New York :: Pennsylvania :: Virginia :: Washington, DC :: Be Diverse ? Consider use of parallel sets of claims – one of which is drafted using means (or step) plus function language – the other uses structural language ? Or – one of which is in method format – the other of which is in device or apparatus format 23 California :: Delaware :: Florida :: New Jersey :: New York :: Pennsylvania :: Virginia :: Washington, DC :: Responding to 167。 103 Rejections ? Under KSR, Examiners must still provide sufficient rationale to support conclusion that it would have been obvious to bine references. ? “[T]here must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR at 14. California :: Delaware :: Florida :: New Jersey :: New York :: Pennsylvania :: Virginia :: Washington, DC :: Responding to 167。 112, paragraph six ? The absence of the terms “means” or “step” does not automatically avoid 35 . 167。 103 Rejections ? Argue that interdependencies between claim elements are not disclosed in prior art. California :: Delaware :: Florida :: New Jersey :: New York :: Pennsylvania :: Virginia :: Washington, DC :: Responding to 167。 Rooney PC California :: Delaware :: Florida :: New Jersey :: New York :: Pennsylvania :: Virginia :: Washington, DC :: After KSR, the Standards Continue to be Tightened USPTO Board of Appeals 2022 2022 2022 AFFIRMED, AT LEAST IN PART % % 69% REVERSED OR REMANDED % % % California :: Delaware :: Florida :: New Jersey :: New York :: Pennsylvania :: Virginia :: Washington, DC :: October 10, 2022 PTO Guidelines ? Must read for any practitioner handling US prosecution ? Identified seven “Rationales” supporting a legal conclusion of obviousness ? Each “Rationales” includes specific examples based on case law California :: Delaware :: Florida :: New Jersey :: New York :: Pennsylvania :: Virginia :: Washington, DC :: ? What attributes should a wellwritten patent application have? – Describe the invention so one of ordinary skill can understand it – Disclose the best mode – Provide support for subsequent amendment of claims – Claims narrow enough to avoid prior art – Claims broad enough to hamper design around The “wellwritten” patent application 4 California :: Delaware :: Florida :: New Jersey :: New York :: Pennsylvania :: Virginia :: Washington, DC :: – Cla
環(huán)評公示相關(guān)推薦
鄂ICP備17016276號-1